Talk:Robert Jenkinson, 2nd Earl of Liverpool

Name

Was he known by all three names, or should this be moved to Robert Jenkinson, 2nd Earl of Liverpool? The article calls him "Robert Jenkinson", but I thought I'd check first. Proteus (Talk) 09:22, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

No one has said anything, and I think inertia more than anything gave all our peerage articles middle names. I'm moving it. Mackensen (talk) 19:15, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

He is officially known as Robert Banks Jenkinson all three names, the name Banks being taken by the eldest son in the family, until he becomes known as Baron Hawkesbury in 1796, then Lord Liverpool on the death of his father. It is further complicated by the fact that he was called by the courtsey title Baron Hawkesbury and still sat in the commons, until he was elevated to the peerage in his own right in 1803. JMAlter 18:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Entrance to the House of Parliament

How could he enter the House of Commons in 1790? He was only twenty, or perhaps even nineteen, years old.

Although Members had to be 21 to take their seats, it was quite frequently the case that sons of noble houses were elected to the House of Commons before this time and only took their seats on turning 21. The minimum age was also not strictly enforced and there are cases on record of active MPs in their teens. David | Talk 17:02, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

It was not illegal to sit in the commons even under age, what was illegal was to vote underage. Jenkinson removed this temptation, and first sat a day after his 21st birthday and voted on the Revenue Resolutions of 8 June 1791.JMAlter

Indian Heritage

I have read or heard somewhere that his mother was partly of Indian lineage.

I've taken the liberty of removing the short reference to Lord Liverpool and the A2 syllabus. If anyone wants to say that there has been a renewal of interest in him in recent years, that's fine; but to say that this, that or other is or isn't in the A2 syllabus is a very odd thing to find in an encyclopedia entry.

Jenkinson's mother, Amelia Watts, was the daughter of the former Governor of Fort William in Bengal, William Watts and a well known Eurasian woman, already twice widowed. It was not uncommon for the members of the East Indian Company to marry women from where they worked. Racism had not reared its ugly head in this area JMAlter

Lord Liverpool was the son of Lord Liverpool and Amelia Watts, who was the daughter of William Watts (one of Robert Clive's bagmen) and [Frances Johnson], who was the daughter of a chap named Croke and one Isabella Beizor. So I think it's fair to say he wasn't mixed race at all, sadly. I'll amend the page accordingly. Eithin (talk) 12:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I've added more on the ancestry of Amelia Watts at her father [[William Watts]' talk page. Begum Johnson was erroneously believed to be Eurasian. If she was is unclear from her portrait in the National Portrait Gallery. (Personally, looking at Begum Johnson's portrait, I would more readily believe her to have mulatto ancestry than Indian). Her mother was one Isabella Beizor and her father the British Governor of Fort St. David (Coromandel coast).. If Amelia Watts was mixed-race, she was at best, one fourth Indian or whatever (assuming that Isabella Beizor was born Indian). Wikibiohistory 01:04, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the 'part-Indian' qualification of Amelia Watts as she was (see William Watts) the daughter of 'Frances Altham, née Croke', herself daughter of 'Isabella Beizor a Portuguese Indian Creole' (unsourced qualification), which does not mean Beizor was even partly Indian, just a Portuguese born in India of whatever ancestries, and anyway this was not the correct term used then in Portuguese India: "In the seventeenth century, the term Castiço came to be applied to Portuguese persons born in India without any infusion of Asian blood, and the term Mestiço to anyone who had a European ancestor, however remote." (citation in art. 'Mestiço'). Moreover, according to Vyvyen Brendon (Children of the Raj, 2015) "Mrs Croke's father was an English civil servant and there is no evidence that her halfPortuguese mother, Isabella Beizor, was Eurasian." and Ivor Edwards-Stuart wrote in 1990 (The Calcutta of Begum Johnson) that "Isabella, as her name implies, was of Portuguese descent. Some later writers have insinuated that she was of mixed blood, but this is very unlikely" --Minorities observer (talk) 18:35, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I have created an article for Begum Johnson, as the best-known name of Lord Liverpool's grandmother. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 23:24, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

References

Oxford or Cambridge?

Which did he attend? The article says Oxford, the category Cambridge. Timrollpickering 01:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Oxford, LordHarris 18:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Jenkinson entered Christ Church Oxford in the April of 1787. He was awarded a degree of MA on 19 April 1790. JMAlter

He was at Oxford between April 1787 and April 1790, having taken a few months out to perfect his French in Paris in 1789: so he must have claimed "privilege of nobility" as the eldest son of a Lord. That meant he did not have to attend lectures or take examinations, and could proceed directly to the MA after two years' residence, without taking the BA on the way. NRPanikker (talk) 19:36, 7 November 2020 (UTC)NRPanikker (talk) 18:49, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Edit

Ive just done a massive edit to the page and wikified it. Ive expanded the PM section from a couple of paragraphs to almost a dozen and have added subcategories for the important times of his ministry including the unrest at home, the corn laws, catholic emancip, end of the napolenic war and vienna congress. I have added some references, creating a new reference section and a new bibliography section. Also made edits to his early life and his late life, as well as a few other general edits. LordHarris 18:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

What did he study?

It tells us everything about his time at university but his course --RaphaelBriand (talk) 23:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

He must have claimed "privilege of nobility" to acquire an MA as quickly as he did: so he was free to study as much or as little as he felt like.NRPanikker (talk) 19:39, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Odd claims

It says he had a stroke and resigned as Prime Minister in 1827, and he died the following year. So, why does it state in the same paragraph that he died in office ?This is an error as he did not die in office- he died at home on 4th December 1828. JM Alter It also says that the Hawkesbury River in New South Wales was named after him. This seems unlikely, as it was named in about 1789, which was before his political career.Lathamibird (talk) 06:18, 4 April 2016 (UTC) The river is probably named after Hawkesbury in Gloucestershire. JM Alter

I've just revised the early part of the article, part of which involved removing the words "in office" as clearly untrue. Harfarhs (talk) 21:19, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

More to the point, the title Viscount Hawkesbury did not exist until the creation of his father's peerage in 1796 so it rules out connection with naming of Hawkesbury River.Cloptonson (talk) 14:17, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Charles Jenkinson was created Baron Hawkesbury in 1786 and Earl of Liverpool in 1796. Opera hat (talk) 18:28, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Un-chronological narrative re agriculture and Corn Laws

"Agriculture remained a problem because good harvests between 1819 and 1822 had brought down prices and evoked a cry for greater protection. When the powerful agricultural lobby in Parliament demanded protection in the aftermath, Liverpool gave in to political necessity. Under governmental supervision the notorious Corn Laws of 1815 were passed prohibiting the import of foreign wheat until the domestic price reached a minimum accepted level. Liverpool, however, was in principle a free-trader, but had to accept the bill as a temporary measure to ease the transition to peacetime conditions."

This (subsection Corn Laws and trouble at home) could do with a re-work because the chronology appears skewed. The years of good harvests followed (unintendedly) the passage of the Corn Laws 4 years earlier.Cloptonson (talk) 10:52, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Info box

This is much more appropriate image The old image is cropped from a painting that’s already being used in the article File:Sir Thomas Lawrence (1769-1830) - Robert Banks Jenkinson (1770-1828), 2nd Earl of Liverpool - RCIN 404930 - Royal Collection.jpg Orson12345 (talk) 17:24, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Sock drawer; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DantheWikipedian/Archive for details. — SamX [talk · contribs] 03:43, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
On this Article If anyone have any objections to changes or edits made to this page, do not immediately remove said content without legitimate reason and so if have any problems with the current version of this page, if have such problems leave a reason stating your reasons. DavidDunnymede (talk) 14:04, 2 September 2023 (UTC) A Case Please do not remove information, only remove if the info is copied and do not remove the info if it is cited or referenced. This official Wikipedia policy. 61.245.161.206 (talk) 08:41, 8 September 2023 (UTC) Okay, I have just done that. Thank you for reminding. DavidDunnymede (talk) 09:41, 8 September 2023 (UTC) Editing and Citing I have just restored some previous edits to this page by an anonymous user who had added a lot of valuable information over the past few days. I found that the user was a mobile user and the user said that he couldn’t cite the sources he took the information from. So I was able to restore them and cite them for him and for this page. But some of the restored edits were being reversed by SamX for copyvio. I don’t understand. Why do you remove content when it is cited and the sources are cited. If this continues, I might leave Wikipedia for good. Because of unfair it is to claim that it is completely copyright and when clearly the sources were cited and referenced accordingly to Wikipedia policy. DavidDunnymede (talk) 18:39, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Possible copyright problem

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. — SamX [talk · contribs] 03:43, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

On Portrait

I changed the official image on this article to another painting by Thomas Lawrence the same artist who painted the previous image. It seems that the new installation is too big for this for infobox. Can somebody please make it a bit smaller or crop it perhaps? Altonydean (talk) 10:12, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Request for editors to join and improve this page with new information

This page needs urgent and critical restructuring outdated texts and sources. I think that since Lord Liverpool was one of the most cruel influential Prime Minister of the 19th century. I think that this page has not done any justice to his legacy or his work therefore I ask editors cable and notable Subject of history to edit and add new information to this page concerning his policies in the section prime minister Lord Liverpool is highly underrated and this generally seem to be unknown and so therefore I think that since he was influential Prime Minister as I mentioned above this page needs some Reese structuring and need some updates can anyone , help me and others edit this page to the upgrades it deserve. Your participation and your involvement will be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Altonydean (talk) 16:42, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Consideration and article word number consensus for splitting section “Prime Minister” into a separate article

I just want to ask editors on this article talk panel about an upcoming and ongoing project to split and create a new article for the section that discuss the events and policies of Lord Liverpool in “Prime Minister”. Your recommendations and suggestions will be included in every step of this task and your participation is welcomed highly. I just want to ask the editors here about the word consensus of this article and a general idea of how to accomplish this task in terms of expansion and separation. Your thoughts and ideas are very important to the development of this article in the long term. Altonydean (talk) 12:16, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Support This would seem a logical move given the size of the Premiership section and most other Prime Ministers have separate articles about their Premiership/Government(s). @Altonydean I would follow Wikipedia:Be bold and go ahead with this but follow Wikipedia:Splitting and Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thanks Coldupnorth (talk) 08:28, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your endorsement @Coldupnorth. Greatly appreciate your kind support. However, do we need the support of other editors as well? Just asking. And also how do we the splitt the section, like create a new article or something similar? Altonydean (talk) 09:35, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi, support is always better although the Wikipedia splitting information page says it is necessary for high-profile or sensitive articles. Arguably, any Prime Ministers article is somewhat high-profile but equally its a common enough split for most of the other Prime ministers and you suggested the split several weeks ago and no one has (yet) objected. If you are unsure of how to do a split, you would need to read Wikipedia:Splitting#WP:PROPERSPLIT. The procedure there is laid out step by step which should be carefully followed. Coldupnorth (talk) 09:48, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Okay. I will do as instructed. Thanks. Altonydean (talk) 09:50, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@Coldupnorth I will do it. But unfortunately, I have been using my mobile device to perform edits for the past few days and I’m a bit struggling with how to properly handle the new system that I’m using. So I will be able to fully create a page for Premiership of Lord Liverpool within two or three weeks. Also, when you copy texts from the mother article to a new one, do you have to change some (or many) of the words or use other sources to avoid unnecessary confusion? Altonydean (talk) 16:25, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi, yes, you may need to do some writing/editing, depending on the circumstances. The original article becomes the overview of key items, with the greater detail moving to the new article. This then allows the new article to be further expanded in time as well. Naturally, you will have some repetition between the overview in his main biography and the text in the Premiership article. You also have Liverpool ministry to work with. You could start the new article in your sandbox in your userspace first until you think its ready to make the actual split. Alternatively, you can create drafts of articles, see Wikipedia:Drafts this lets you get it right before you start making changes to the main article. All the best. Coldupnorth (talk) 10:18, 15 August 2024 (UTC)